Chinese warship live-fire exercise discovered by Virgin Australia pilot, Air safety body says

[Quickstatus]

Maybe nothing to see near Tassie, so just moved on

The Scallop and Salmon Roe are safe

 

[RooFlyer]

The Senate estimates committee could have got a security briefing prior to the Senate estimates meeting such that the questions could have been "adjusted".

For this reason I dont buy the idea that Defence is spinning a different public story in order to not reveal what it really did know.

Yes.
This is from Victoria, but refers to appearing before a Commonwealth Parliamentary committee

Guidelines for appearing before Commonwealth Parliamentary Committees

Guidelines for officials requested to appear before Parliamentary Committees of the Commonwealth Parliament and Commonwealth Royal Commissions.

www.vic.gov.au

69. The provision of false or misleading information to a Committee, whether constituting a criminal offence or not, is likely to be construed as "serious misconduct" within the meaning of section 31(1)(d) of the Public Sector Management and Employment Act 1998 (Vic), thereby providing a basis for termination of employment.

102. There may be occasions when a Minister (or, on his or her behalf, the Departmental Secretary) would wish, after balancing the public interests involved, to raise with the Committee the possibility of an official producing documents or giving verbal evidence in private, and on the basis that the information not be disclosed or published except with the Minister's consent.

I believe the latter is different from evidence being given 'in camera' which I now understand can't be done; it would be a 'side discussion/disclosure'.

There are a heap of clauses there, with various perms and coms of giving evidence. There are strict Federal doc equivalents, but that's the one I found readily.

The Hansard for the Senate estimates for Wednesday is 'pending' as of time of this post

Estimates Transcript Schedule

Hansard transcripts for recent rounds of Budget Estimates hearings are available in the tables below. For all other Estimates transcripts dating back to 1988, please refer to ParlInfo. February 2025 Additional Budget Estimates Date Co

www.aph.gov.au

but the ABC's report of it is here

Defence didn't know about China's live-fire exercise for 40 minutes

Defence officials have confirmed they were notified of China's live-fire exercises at around 10:10am — about 40 minutes after the People's Liberation Army Navy opened a "window" for live-fire exercises.

www.abc.net.au

and from that its obvious that the Chief of Defence gave a plain answer inter alia "we didn't know about the firing until ASA told us abt 40 mins after it 'started'" While it might be nice to say Defence was being terribly clever and obtuse and they really knew a lot more, again, lying to a Senate committee is 'illegal' (I don't know the exact term here).# You would hope the Chief of the ADF wasn't lying.


Something else, reported by the ABC (assume the quotes are correct)

The Defence Force chief told the committee that it was not clear if a Chinese submarine was in waters near Australia.

"I don't know whether there is a submarine with them, it is possible, task groups occasionally do deploy with submarines but not always," he said.

"I can't be definitive whether that's the case."

It simply can't be that the ADF really did know that there was a Chinese submarine out there, but they didn't want to say because it would reveal intelligence capabilities. You can't lie/mislead a parliamentary enquiry. As above, there are other ways to get round potentially compromising questioning and there are pre-filters to prevent or obviate sensitive questions being asked ("Isn't it true that ...") or truthful answers with sensitive information being given.

 

[Quickstatus]

appearing before a Commonwealth Parliamentary committee

Sorry I edited my comment to include all of govt and parliament. I think there are mechanisms to brief parliament without a public hearing

 

[justinbrett]

Yes.
This is from Victoria, but refers to appearing before a Commonwealth Parliamentary committee

Guidelines for appearing before Commonwealth Parliamentary Committees

Guidelines for officials requested to appear before Parliamentary Committees of the Commonwealth Parliament and Commonwealth Royal Commissions.

www.vic.gov.au

I believe the latter is different from evidence being given 'in camera' which I now understand can't be done; it would be a 'side discussion/disclosure'.

There are a heap of clauses there, with various perms and coms of giving evidence. There are strict Federal doc equivalents, but that's the one I found readily.

The Hansard for the Senate estimates for Wednesday is 'pending' as of time of this post

Estimates Transcript Schedule

Hansard transcripts for recent rounds of Budget Estimates hearings are available in the tables below. For all other Estimates transcripts dating back to 1988, please refer to ParlInfo. February 2025 Additional Budget Estimates Date Co

www.aph.gov.au

but the ABC's report of it is here

Defence didn't know about China's live-fire exercise for 40 minutes

Defence officials have confirmed they were notified of China's live-fire exercises at around 10:10am — about 40 minutes after the People's Liberation Army Navy opened a "window" for live-fire exercises.

www.abc.net.au

and from that its obvious that the Chief of Defence gave a plain answer inter alia "we didn't know about the firing until ASA told us abt 40 mins after it 'started'" While it might be nice to say Defence was being terribly clever and obtuse and they really knew a lot more, again, lying to a Senate committee is 'illegal' (I don't know the exact term here).# You would hope the Chief of the ADF wasn't lying.


Something else, reported by the ABC (assume the quotes are correct)



It simply can't be that the ADF really did know that there was a Chinese submarine out there, but they didn't want to say because it would reveal intelligence capabilities. You can't lie/mislead a parliamentary enquiry. As above, there are other ways to get round potentially compromising questioning and there are pre-filters to prevent or obviate sensitive questions being asked ("Isn't it true that ...") or truthful answers with sensitive information being given.

I just watched back the key period of the estimates (the entire stream is on youtube).

There were a few points where answers weren't given due to security classification. Quite irresponsibly some of the senators kept pushing. Even if asked in private those senators may not have the required security clearances to get the full answer.

CDF confirmed exactly what I was saying that the call to VA 30 minutes after "firing commenced" was just 30 minutes into the announced firing period, not 30 minutes after rounds were fired. He implied (but later did not confirm) that RNZN heard the same transmission. The implication on both sides (CDF & senators) is that the PLA were reckless by not providing advanced notification.

As for the subs, that language left a lot open. I'd say they have intel there is one out there but they haven't confirmed it. Most of this is down to clever language. Like if you ever hear "the unclassified range of [x] capability is..." all it tells you is that it's not that and it's actually a lot more.

 

[drron]

If the ADF had an unprecedented surveillance on the PLA-N ships from the start, Albo would have been told by someone in the ADF, and they could have briefed the Govt, Senate and House in private from the start such that there would be consensus story for the domestic audience. The CCP /PLA-N would not have prior info about these briefings (unless someone in govt leaks to them).

For this reason I don't buy the story that the ADF is spinning a story to suppress the actual truth.

I would have thought after the recent caravan issue, that Albo would want to be on the ball about these matters - after all, Albo apparently has 11 media advisers and the CDF would have been on his speed dial.

Well it has happened in the not too distant past with a Senator.

 

[Quickstatus]

by not providing advanced notification.

Via the appropriate channels rather than just over the standard air traffic frequency.

Is it possible that no one picked up an earlier notification prior to firing period?

When did the NZ patrol boat know?.



....

...Left hand does not know what the right hand is doing..

 

[justinbrett]

Via the appropriate channels rather than just over the standard air traffic frequency.

Which apparently is not a legal requirement, just best practice.

When did the NZ patrol boat know?.

He wouldn't answer definitively but implied the ship heard the same transmission as VA. He was later more vague when asked to confirm.

 

[RooFlyer]

Via the appropriate channels rather than just over the standard air traffic frequency.

I think it was made over the 'universal' emergency frequency, that planes monitor (or can) but ASA doesn't. So wasn't broadcasting directly to general aviation, just sort of shouting it out. @justinbrett does that sound correct?

 

[RooFlyer]

CDF confirmed exactly what I was saying that the call to VA 30 minutes after "firing commenced" was just 30 minutes into the announced firing period, not 30 minutes after rounds were fired. He implied (but later did not confirm) that RNZN heard the same transmission. The implication on both sides (CDF & senators) is that the PLA were reckless by not providing advanced notification.

Thanks, but there is still no indication of "Oh, we didn't know beforehand" at Senate Estimates Vs "wink wink yes we did know but we aren't telling" scenario which was being postulated above. CDF was asked a question, answered it as to timing (plus or minus). No wriggle room there to imply they knew before ASA told them. Unless he was being untruthful.

 

[justinbrett]

I think it was made over the 'universal' emergency frequency, that planes monitor (or can) but ASA doesn't. So wasn't broadcasting directly to general aviation, just sort of shouting it out. @justinbrett does that sound correct?

Guard frequency, 121.5 (VHF). It simply doesn’t have the range to reach the mainland from where the ship was.

The intent is that the military force can communicate directly with ships and aircraft, not that it is heard by the adjacent country’s ATC system.

General aviation means something different - but yes transmitting on guard is intended to be heard by commercial (and any) aviation and maritime assets.

 

[justinbrett]

Thanks, but there is still no indication of "Oh, we didn't know beforehand" at Senate Estimates Vs "wink wink yes we did know but we aren't telling" scenario which was being postulated above. CDF was asked a question, answered it as to timing (plus or minus). No wriggle room there to imply they knew before ASA told them. Unless he was being untruthful.

As I posted above you’d be surprised what the CDF doesn’t know. He doesn’t have a role in current ops (and later confirmed he wasn’t personally advised until midday, MINDEF knew before him).

Plenty of wriggle room that somebody in the ADF knew earlier. The official notification from NZDF was around 11. But knowing the way these things work people talk to their counterparts as it works it way through the official chain.

It’s not all that important really. The implication in the media is somehow defence f’d up by not knowing, but watching the full estimates video that was not the implication of either side. In actual fact it was that the PLA did the bare minimum by telling aircraft directly but didn’t demonstrate best practices by giving advanced notice.

Frankly starting to think a mountain is being made of this molehill.

 

[DC3]

The Scallop and Salmon Roe are safe

And the best scallop pies ever.

 

[PERLHR]

Having looked at the organisation chart of the Australian Defence it looks like it could be doing with some streamlining and thus likely better comms between all.

 

[DC3]

On-track to Rottnest Island now?